Out of Sight, Out of Time? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Procrastination and Time Perspective

European Journal of Personality, Eur. J. Pers. (2014)Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.1947

Out of Sight, Out of Time? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Procrastinationand Time Perspective

FUSCHIA M. SIROIS*

Department of Psychology, Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada

*CorrUniveE-ma

Copy

Abstract: Recent theory suggests that trait procrastination is a form of temporal self-regulation failure that reflects adisjunction between the present and future self. Yet research to date is sparse and inconsistent regarding the nature ofthe associations of procrastination with time perspective. The current study aimed to meta-analytically summarize theevidence to date to address the question of how procrastination is linked to future and present time perspective, and totest whether stress and positive affect explained the link between procrastination and future time perspective. A searchof the available literature yielded six published studies and three unpublished studies, which were combined with fiveunpublished data sets for a total of 14 samples with 4312 participants. The meta-analysis revealed that procrastina-tion had a moderate and significant negative association with future time perspective, and a small but significantpositive association with present time perspective. Mediation analyses across two of the samples found that highstress and low positive affect explained in part the association between procrastination and future time perspective.Overall, these findings support the notion that procrastinators focus less on the future and highlight the dynamicinterrelations of affect and cognition that underlie procrastinators’ intertemporal choices. Copyright © 2014 EuropeanAssociation of Personality Psychology

Key words: procrastination; time perspective; meta-analysis; stress; positive affect

As a temporally bound behaviour, procrastination involves abreakdown in self-regulation that has consequences for notonly the present self but also the future self (Sirois & Pychyl,2013). Yet mounting evidence suggests that procrastinatorsare less concerned with the future than they are with thepresent (Díaz-Morales, Ferrari, & Cohen, 2008; Ferrari &Díaz-Morales, 2007), despite the considerable consequencesof this short sightedness for their health and well-being(Sirois, 2007). Indeed, research suggests that taking abalanced time perspective and focusing on the past, presentand future equally may be optimal for health and well-being(Boniwell, Osin, Linley, & Ivanchenko, 2010; Drake,Duncan, Sutherland, Abernethy, & Henry, 2008). This lackof considering the future is akin to having low levels offuture time perspective, that is, less tendency to considerthe future implications of present choices (Zimbardo &Boyd, 1999). Less clear are the reasons for procrastinators’lack of considering the future during the volitional break-down, which leads them to unnecessarily delay previousintentions to start or complete important and necessary tasks.This is intriguing because on the surface considering thenegative future consequences of procrastinating would seema reasonable way to curtail the poor intertemporal choicesthat result in needless delay. However, if procrastination isviewed as resulting primarily from problems related toshort-term mood regulation, then it is possible that the

espondence to: FuschiaM. Sirois, Department of Psychology, Bishop’srsity, 2600 College St., Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada J1M 1Z7.il: [email protected]

right © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

cognitive shifts in focus arising from the negative affectivestates associated with procrastination may interfere withtaking a broader, more future-oriented view of currentpending tasks.

The current paper addresses the question of how and whytrait procrastination is linked to time perspective by firstmeta-analytically summarizing the evidence to dateregarding the magnitude of the associations between traitprocrastination and both future and present time perspec-tives. Next, the possible role of two affective states,perceived stress and low positive affect, for explaining theseeffects with respect to future time perspective are explored.As will be discussed, neuroscience perspectives on theeffects of stress on cognition (Davis & Whalen, 2001;LeDoux, 2000) and theoretical accounts of the role ofpositive emotions in undoing the effects of stress by broaden-ing thought–action repertoires (Fredrickson, 2001) convergeto support this proposition.

Procrastination and time perspective

Procrastination can be conceptualized as the voluntary delayof important and necessary tasks despite knowing that onewill be worse off for doing so (Lay, 1986; Steel, 2007),which involves prioritizing the regulation of present moodat the expense of future mood and consequences (Sirois &Pychyl, 2013). The temporal aspects of procrastinationbecome more evident when we consider that procrastinationis most likely to occur for tasks that have distal rewards orthat are unpleasant, challenging or tedious and therefore

Received 5 May 2013Revised 9 December 2013, Accepted 10 December 2013

F. M. Sirois

elicit negative emotions (for a review, see Sirois & Pychyl,2013). Task avoidance when combined with poor self-control becomes a way of regulating current mood byescaping the negative affect or lack of positive rewardsassociated with current tasks and replacing these tasks withmore pleasurable and enjoyable ones. When this form oftemporal self-regulation failure becomes a frequent way ofresponding to tasks that are viewed as difficult (Pychyl,Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000) or without immediatereward (Schouwenburg & Groenewoud, 2001), procrastina-tion can be viewed as a relatively stable behaviouraltendency with trait-like qualities.

Given the temporal nature of procrastination, it is reason-able to expect that procrastination may be differentiallyassociated with individual differences in cognitive timeframes or time perspectives. Zimbardo and Boyd (1999)propose that time perspectives (past, present and future)reflect non-conscious processes involving how the flow ofexperiences are assigned temporal categories to create order,structure and meaning to these events. When an individualdevelops a tendency to emphasize one temporal frame overothers repeatedly and habitually while making decisions,the favoured temporal frame can become a cognitive tempo-ral bias. Continued and chronic overuse of this time framecan become a dispositional style that guides daily decisionsacross a number of domains. According to this view of timeperspective, a present-oriented time perspective can alsohave a negative (fatalistic) or positive (hedonistic) affectivevalence, with the latter reflecting a focus on present pleasureseeking with less concern for the future consequences of thishedonistic orientation (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). If we viewprocrastination as an instance of self-control failure and taskavoidance driven by short-term mood regulation or ‘giving into feel good’ (Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000), then a focus onimmediate rewards and pleasures or having a present-hedonistic time orientation seems likely. Although futuretime perspective is not simply the inverse of a present timeperspective (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), waiting until the lastminute to try and complete important tasks along with adisregard for the implications of such actions for one’s futureself (Sirois & Pychyl, 2013) are clear indicators that procras-tinators may be less likely to use a future time orientation toguide their decisions and actions.

The few published studies on the links between procrasti-nation and time perspective support the notion that traitprocrastination is characterized by a disjunction betweenthe present and the future with respect to cognitive temporalfocus. Using the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory(ZTPI; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), three studies have foundthat procrastination is positively associated with a present-hedonistic time orientation and negatively associated with afuture time orientation (Díaz-Morales et al., 2008; Ferrari &Díaz-Morales, 2007; Jackson, Fritch, Nagasaka, & Pope,2003). However, a fourth study using the Temporal Orienta-tion Scale (Jones, Banicky, Lasane, & Pomare, 1996), whichassesses the three basic time orientations—past, present andfuture—found the expected negative association with futuretime orientation but failed to find a significant associationbetween procrastination and present time orientation (Specter

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

& Ferrari, 2000). Similarly, a study using a short version ofthe ZTPI found that procrastination was negativelyassociated with future time orientation but was unrelated toa present-hedonistic time perspective (Gupta, Hershey, &Gaur, 2012). Finally, a study using the consideration offuture consequences (CFC) scale (Strathman, Gleicher,Boninger, & Edwards, 1994), a measure of future timeorientation, found the expected negative association withprocrastination (Sirois, 2004b).

Taken together, this research suggests a link betweenprocrastination and low levels of future time perspectivebut that the links between procrastination and present timeperspective are less consistent. Measurement issues regard-ing the way present time perspective and procrastinationare measured may partially explain the inconsistencies. Forexample, among the studies noted earlier, two different timeperspective and three different trait procrastination scaleswere used. Moreover, there is considerable variability inthe magnitude of the associations between procrastination,and both future and present time perspective in the publishedstudies to date, suggesting that measurement and samplingissues may impact these effects. Understanding the extentto which procrastination is linked to time perspective as wellas the factors that may explain these links can have importantimplications for conceptualizing and designing interventionsfor addressing the temporal issues associated with procrasti-nation. Taking a more comprehensive view of the linksbetween procrastination and time perspective also addressesthe call by researchers to better understand the role of person-ality factors in time perspective (Zacher & de Lange, 2011).

The role of stress and positive affect in time perspective

The question of why procrastinators have less concern for thefuture than they do for the present may be answered byconsidering the role of stress. A growing body of researchindicates that procrastination is associated with high levels ofstress (Flett, Blankstein, & Martin, 1995; Rice, Richardson,& Clark, 2012; Sirois, 2007; Sirois, Melia-Gordon, & Pychyl,2003; Tice & Baumeister, 1997) and that this stress may bepartially self-generated (Sirois, 2013a). Procrastinators havedifficulty detaching from negative feelings and take ajudgmental, critical, self-blaming approach to their own inade-quacies, which exacerbates their stress (Sirois, 2013a; Sirois &Stout, 2011; Sirois & Tosti, 2012). In addition, these negativeself-evaluative thoughts can resemble rumination and lead to apre-occupation with personal flaws and past procrastinationthat can contribute to both increased stress (Flett, Stainton,Hewitt, Sherry, & Lay, 2012) and perhaps a lack of concernfor the future because their focus is directed to other temporalframes. For example, acute stress initiates a cascade ofneurophysiological responses that includes activation of brainareas involved in attentional, emotional and behaviouralchanges, which function to redirect resources to promoteadaptation to the perceived threat (Davis & Whalen, 2001;McEwen, 2007). Among these, the amygdala plays a centralrole by increasing moment to moment vigilance towardsthreatening stimuli and in the experience of threat-related fearand anxiety (Davis & Whalen, 2001). In effect, this stress

Eur. J. Pers. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/per


response orients one’s focus away from distal and towardsimmediate concerns and threats to initiate coping efforts(LeDoux, 2000). For the procrastinator, this may mean focus-ing on more pleasurable present alternatives regardless of theirfuture consequences as a way to avoid pending challengingtasks and the negative self-evaluations that they elicit.

Alternatively, low positive affect may also explain whyprocrastination is associated with less focus on the futuretime. According to the broaden and build model of positiveemotions (Fredrickson, 1998), positive emotional states suchas joy, enjoyment and contentment undo the narrowing offocus function of stress and negative emotions by broadeningan individual’s momentary thought–action repertoire. Inshort, positive emotions serve to broaden the scopes of atten-tion and cognition and may therefore be conducive towardstaking a more future-oriented perspective. In support of thisnotion, future time perspective is associated with higherlevels of positive affect and well-being (Zimbardo & Boyd,1999). Although procrastination has been primarilyexamined with respect to its links with negative affectivestates such as anxiety and depression (Ferrari, 1991;Haycock, McCarthy, & Skay, 1998; Lay, Edwards, Parker,& Endler, 1989; Martin, Flett, Hewitt, Krames, & Szanto,1996; Senecal, Koestner, & Vallerand, 1995), there is someevidence that trait procrastination is associated with lowlevels of positive affect, which in turn can promote procras-tination. For example, in a longitudinal study of adults tryingto make intended healthy changes, trait procrastination wasassociated with lower levels of positive affect about makingthe healthy changes, which in turn predicted being less likelyto succeed in following through making the changes (Sirois& Giguère, 2013). Taken together, this research providessome basis for the proposition that procrastinators’ low levelsof positive affect may make shifting their cognitiveorientation from a narrow, present-oriented focus into a broader,more future-oriented perspective a challenge.

The current research

Theory and research to date support the notion that traitprocrastination is associated with less focus on the future andmore focus on the present. There is need, however, for a morefine-grained investigation of these associations and their mag-nitude especially given the inconsistencies in the links betweenprocrastination and present time orientation. Also important isunderstanding why procrastinators do not emphasize the futurewhen making decisions about taking action towards theirgoals. Such insights can point towards possible strategies andinterventions (reducing stress and increasing positive affect)that may help procrastinators shift from their present-orientedfocus to a more future-oriented focus.

The current study took a two-step approach to address thequestions of how and why procrastination is linked to timeperspective. The first step involved assessing the magnitudeand nature of the associations between procrastinationand present and future time perspective by searching thepublished and unpublished literature to find papers reportingrelevant effects. These papers were then supplemented withadditional unpublished data sets that contained measures of


procrastination and time perspective, and the papers and datasets were meta-analysed to estimate the size of the effectsand identify the factors that may account for possible hetero-geneity in the effects between studies. A moderator analysiswas conducted with four potential moderators to identifysources of heterogeneity in the effects sizes: the publicationstatus of the study, whether a student or adult sample wasused, the scale used to measure time perspective and thescale used to measure procrastination. The second stepinvolved probing the nature and magnitude of the associationbetween procrastination and future time perspective.Consistent with research on the effects of stress on cognitivefocus, and theory on the broadening cognitive effects ofpositive affective states, the hypothesis that stress andpositive affect would explain, at least in part, the proposedlink between procrastination and future time perspectivewas tested by conducting a series of mediation analysesacross two independent samples. In each analysis, theproposed mediators, stress and positive affect were firsttested individually and, if significant, together in a multi-ple-mediator model to obtain a better understanding of howeach may account for the lack of future temporal orientationassociated with trait procrastination.

METHODS

Literature search and coding

An online database (PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES, 1985–2013)search was conducted to identify empirical studies that may beincluded in the meta-analysis. The keyword ‘procrastination’was combined with words related to time perspective (e.g.time-orientation, time perspective, future consequences, futureorientation and present orientation). This formal literaturesearch yielded a total of 26 potentially eligible papers. Afterremoving duplicates and papers that did not include analysesof the associations between procrastination and future orpresent time perspective, a total of six papers were identified.This initial search was supplemented by a search of informalchannels including Google scholar and professional papersand presentations from conferences that focused on timeperspective and procrastination. Forward and backwardsearching of the relevant papers identified from the initialsearch of formal and informal channels were conducted tocomplement the database searches and ensure the relevantliterature was identified. Informal channels included personalemails and conversations with several prominent procrastina-tion researchers. Combined, these search strategies yielded anadditional four unique papers including two theses, oneunpublished data set and one conference paper. One thesiswas excluded because the corresponding author did notrespond to the request for necessary information. In total, nineuseable papers and data sets were found.

Essential information for the meta-analyses and plannedmoderator analysis was recorded for each of the nine eligibledata sets obtained from the search. The zero-order correlation(r) was used as the effect size as it was the metric mostcommonly reported in the studies. All but one study provided


DOI: 10.1002/per

F. M. Sirois

the effect between procrastination and time perspective as anr value; the F value in this study was converted to an r valueto maintain the same metric. Moderator information recordedincluded the scales used to measure procrastination and timeperspective, the sample population (community adultsversus students) and the publication status of the data.The nine independent data sets retrieved from the literaturesearch (N= 2442) were supplemented by an additionalfive unpublished data sets (N= 1855) described in the nextsection, for which the same moderator information wasrecorded. The total sample size across all the data setswas 4297.

Participants and procedure

Of the five additional data sets, three were collected as part ofa larger program of research investigating the links betweenself-regulation, stress, and well-being; and two (samples 1and 5) were from published papers that did not analyse theassociation of procrastination with time perspective (Sirois,2007, 2013b). All samples consisted of adults recruited fromthe community. Sample 1 completed the survey and returnedit by mail, whereas samples 2–5 completed an online survey.A dedicated university-based web page for each studydirected participants to the online survey housed on a secureuniversity server. Consent to participate was indicated byclicking an ‘I agree’ button on the online consent form.Participants in samples 1 and 2 were paid $15 for completing

Table 1. Demographic characteristics and measures used for each sampl

Sample NPercentfemale M

1 210 67.5 34.282 980 36.3 32.603 283 74.2 26.954 140 67.5 33.025 257 70.4 33.79

Note: GPS, General Procrastination scale; AIP-R, Adult Inventory of ProcrastinZimbardo Time Perspective Inventory, short form; PSS, Perceived Stress Scale; P

Table 2. Summary of the characteristics of the study variables for the fiv

Sample 1 Sample 2

N= 210 N= 980

M (SD) α M (SD)

Procrastination—GPS 2.47 (0.62) .88 2.71 (0.69)Procrastination—AIP-R — — — — —Future time perspective—ZTPI-S — — — — —Future time perspective—CFC 3.44 (0.67) .83 3.34 (0.67)Present time perspective — — — — —Perceived stress 2.91 (0.61) .84 — —Positive affect—PANAS 3.06 (0.74) .85 — —

Note: All means are based on a 5-point scale, except for the AIP-R, which is baseGPS, General Procrastination scale; AIP-R, Adult Inventory of Procrastination, revTime Perspective Inventory, short form; PSS, Perceived Stress Scale; PANAS, Po


the survey, and the participants in the remaining sampleswere given the opportunity to enter a draw for certificatesto an online bookstore for their participation. Table 1summarizes the demographic characteristics and relevantmeasures completed for each of the five samples.

Measures

A summary of the scale means and reliabilities across each ofthe five samples is presented in Table 2.

ProcrastinationAcross the five independent samples, two different measuresof trait procrastination were used. Samples 1–5 completedLay’s General Procrastination scale (GPS; Lay, 1986), a20-item measure of procrastination in general across a rangeof tasks. Items such as ‘I generally delay before starting workI have to do’ are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale rang-ing from 1 (false of me) to 5 (true of me). The GPS includes10 reverse-scored items, and the sum of all items yields asingle score with high values indicating a greater tendencyto procrastinate. The GPS has demonstrated good internalconsistency previously (α= .82; Lay, 1986). Sample 5completed the revised Adult Inventory of Procrastination(AIP-R; McCown & Johnson, 2001), a 15-item measure thatassesses trait procrastination in adults. The seven positivelyand eight negatively keyed items such as ‘I am not very goodat meeting deadlines’ are scored on a 7-point Likert-type

e

Age (years)

MeasuresSD

14.32 GPS, CFC, PSS, PANAS9.94 GPS, CFC11.43 GPS, ZTPI-S16.73 AIP-R, ZTPI-S, PSS, PANAS-X12.33 GPS, AIP-R, CFC

ation, revised; CFC, Consideration of Future Consequences scale; ZTPI-S,ANAS, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule.

e independent samples

Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5

N= 283 N = 140 N= 257

α M (SD) α M (SD) α M (SD) α

.91 2.84 (0.67) .91 2.60 (0.67) .88 — — —— — — — — — — 3.12 (0.97) .88— 3.36 (0.74) .85 3.39 (0.74) .94 — — —.87 — — — — — — 3.39 (0.58) .83— 2.75 (0.65) .68 2.86 (0.65) .68 — — —— — — — 2.73 (0.73) .89 — — —— — — — 3.03 (0.92) .93 — — —

d on a 7-point scale.ised; CFC, Consideration of Future Consequences scale; ZTPI-S, Zimbardositive and Negative Affect Schedule.


DOI: 10.1002/per


scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (stronglyagree). After reverse scoring the negative items, all 15 itemsare summed with higher scores reflecting a greater tendencytowards procrastination. Also included are five distracteritems as recommended by the scale creators. The AIP-Rhas demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .84,N= 984; McCown & Johnson, 2001).

Time perspectiveTwo different measures of time perspective were completedamong the five samples. Samples 4 and 5 completed a shortversion of the ZTPI (ZTPI-S; D’Alessio, Guarino, DePascalis, & Zimbardo, 2003), and the remaining threesamples completed the CFC scale (Strathman et al., 1994).The ZTPI-S (D’Alessio et al., 2003) is a 22-item measure thatassess both future and present (hedonistic and fatalistic) timeperspective. For the current study, the present-hedonistic scalewas examined. The future subscale included nine items such as‘I believe that a person’s day should be planned ahead eachmorning’, and the present-hedonistic subscale included sevenitems such as ‘I feel that it is more important to enjoy whatyou are doing than to get the work done on time’, rated on a5-point scale ranging from 1 (very uncharacteristic of me) to5 (very characteristic of me).

The CFC (Strathman et al., 1994) is a 12-item measure thatassesses individual differences in the extent to which immedi-ate versus distant consequences of behaviour are considered.Unlike the ZTPI, the 12-itemCFC is a unidimensional measureof future time perspective and therefore does not assess presenttime perspective separately. Individuals who are high in CFCconsider the future consequences of their behaviour andendorse statements such as ‘I consider how things might bein the future, and try to influence those things with my day-to-day behavior’ and ‘I am willing to sacrifice my immediatehappiness or well-being in order to achieve future outcomes’.The CFC scale has demonstrated good internal consistency inprevious studies with Cronbach αs ranging from .80 to .86(Strathman et al., 1994).

StressSamples 1 and 4 also completed the 10-item version of thePerceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen & Williamson, 1988).This widely used empirically established index of generalstress measures the perceived stressfulness of events experi-enced within the past month. Items such as ‘In the last month,how often have you felt nervous and stressed’ are rated on a5-point scale with response options ranging from ‘never’ to‘very often’. The PSS has demonstrated adequate internalconsistency (Cohen & Williamson, 1988). The PSS demon-strated good internal consistency in sample 1 (Cronbachα= .84) and sample 4 (Cronbach α= .88).

Positive affectAmeasure of positive affect was completed by samples 1 and 4.The positive affect subscale of the Positive and Negative AffectSchedule (PANAS;Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was usedfor the current study. The PANAS consists of 20 itemsconsisting of words describing different feelings (e.g. happyand upset), with 10 items for each of the positive and negative


affect scales. Respondents rate the extent to which they arecurrently experiencing each of these feelings on a 5-point Likertscale ranging from 1 for very slightly or not at all to 5 forextremely. In sample 4, an expanded version of the PANASwas completed, the PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994), whichconsisted of 36 items. In addition to the 10 basic positive affectdescriptors, three extra items were added: happy, joyful and re-laxed. The reliabilities of the 10-item and 13-item positive affectscales were very good (Cronbach α= .85 and .93, respectively).

RESULTS

Meta-analyses of procrastination and time perspective

The correlations between trait procrastination and future timeperspective, and trait procrastination and present time perspec-tive were meta-analysed using the Comprehensive Meta-analysis, version 2 software (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, &Rothstein, 2005). The correlations, study coding and results ofthe meta-analyses are presented in Table 3. As expected,procrastination was negatively associated with future time per-spective across all 14 samples, whereas it was positively associ-ated with present time perspective in all but two of the eightsamples that included this measure. The meta-analyses of theseeffects revealed that the average r was �.45 (k=14; p< .001)for the associations between procrastination and future timeperspective, and .15 (k=8; p< .01) for the associations betweenprocrastination and present time perspective.

The heterogeneity statistic, Q, which reflects the degree ofvariability among the pool of effects sizes, was significant forthe meta-analysis of procrastination and future time perspective[Q(13) = 52.70, p< .001], and present time perspective[Q(7) = 31.58, p< .001]. Credibility intervals were also calcu-lated for the meta-analyses to assess the degree to whichunexplained variance in the effect sizes might be accounted forby moderators (Whitener, 1990). If the credibility intervalsinclude zero or are large, then this suggests that the populationincludes subpopulations, which is consistent with the notion thatmoderators exist. The credibility interval for the meta-analyseswith future time perspective was large [�0.59, �0.31], andthe credibility interval for present time perspective crossed zeroand was large [�0.01, 0.29]. Together, these indices indicatedthat moderator analyses to identify the sources of this variabilitywere warranted.

Moderators of procrastination and future timeperspective

To test whether the effect sizes for the associations betweenprocrastination and future time perspective differed as afunction of publication status, a moderator analysis wasconducted to compare the variability in effects between thepublished (k= 6, n=1603) and unpublished (k=8, n=2709)studies. The effects sizes for the published studies[ρ=�0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [�0.52, �0.34]]were not significantly different from those obtained from theunpublished studies [ρ=�0.45, 95% CI= [�0.53, �0.38],Q(1) = 0.10, ns]. Similarly, a moderator analysis of the sample


DOI: 10.1002/per

Table 3. Meta-analysed bivariate correlations between procrastination, present and future time perspective across 14 samples (total N= 4312)

Study N SampleProcrastination

scaleTime

perspective scale

Bivariate correlations

Future timeperspective

Present timeperspective

1. Unpub. data set 210 Adults GPS CFC �.422 —2. Unpub. data set 980 Adults GPS CFC �.386 —3. Unpub. data set 283 Adults GPS ZTPI-S �.625 .3104. Unpub. data set 140 Adults GPS ZTPI-S �.489 .1325. Unpub. data set 257 Adults AIP-R CFC �.360 —6. Dutta & Deshano (2013), unpub. data 281 Students GPS CFC �.358 —7. Deyling (2008) unpub. thesis 78 Students APS FTOS �.368 —8. Nedeljkovic & Kostic (2013)

unpub. conference paper480 Students GPS ZTPI �.508 .193

9. Díaz-Morales et al. (2008) 509 Adults AIP-R ZTPI �.46 .1310. Ferrari and Díaz-Morales (2007) 275 Adults AIP-R ZTPI �.53 .1411. Gupta et al. (2012) 236 Adults GPS ZTPI-S �.365 �.08712. Jackson et al. (2003) 147 Students TPS ZTPI �.53 .3113. Sirois (2004a, 2004b) 221 Students GPS CFC �.348 —

14. Specter and Ferrari (2000) 215 Students AIP-R TOS �.37 �.02

Meta-analysis results Average r (k) �.448 (14) .145 (8)N 4312 2285

95% CI [�0.50, �0.40] [0.06, 0.23]

Note: GPS, General Procrastination scale; AIP-R, Adult Inventory of Procrastination, revised; APS, Aitken Procrastination Scale; TPS, Tuckman ProcrastinationScale; CFC, Consideration of Future Consequences scale; ZTPI-S, Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory, short form; FTOS, Future Time Orientation Scale;TOS, Time Orientation Scale.

F. M. Sirois

characteristics found no differences in the effects sizes fromstudies conducted with students (k=6, n=1422; ρ=�0.40,95% CI= [�0.49, �0.31]) compared with those in studiesconducted with adult community samples [k=8, n=2890;ρ=�0.47, 95%CI= [�0.54,�0.39],Q(1) = 1.17, ns]. The testof whether the effect sizes differed as a function of the procras-tination scale focused solely on a comparison of the GPS (Lay,1986) and the AIP-R (McCown & Johnson, 2001) as thesewere the two most commonly used scales in the studies. Thismoderator analysis was also non-significant [Q(1) = 1.10, ns],indicating that the effects obtained using the GPS (k=9,n=3106; ρ=�0.46, 95% CI= [�0.53, �0.39]) were notsignificantly different from those obtained using the AIP-R(k=4, n=981; ρ=�0.41, 95% CI= [�0.47, �0.34]). Finally,the moderator analysis of the time-perspective scale used wassignificant [Q(1) = 10.54, p< .001] for the 13 samples thatused ZTPI (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) or the CFC scale(Strathman et al., 1994). The effect sizes obtained using theZTPI (k=8, n=2148; ρ=�0.50, 95% CI= [�0.56, �0.44])were larger than those obtained using the CFC scale (k=5,n=1949; ρ=�0.38, 95% CI= [�0.42, �0.34]).

Moderators of procrastination and present timeperspective

The moderator analyses of the link between procrastinationand present time perspective focused on the same moderatorsas the tests run for future time perspective, with the exceptionthat there was no test of the influence of time-perspectivescale on the magnitude of the effect sizes as the ZTPI wasused for all but one of the eight studies. The moderatoranalysis of publication status [Q(1) = 2.09, ns] revealedthat the effects sizes obtained from the published studies


(k= 5, n= 1382; ρ= 0.11, 95% CI = [�0.02, 0.23]) were notsignificantly different than those obtained from theunpublished studies (k = 3, n= 903; ρ= 0.21, 95% CI = [0.13,0.29]). The effect sizes obtained from the student samples(k= 4, n= 1351; ρ= 0.15, 95% CI = [�0.04, 0.26]) were alsonot significantly different for those obtained from the adultsamples [k = 4, n = 934; ρ= 0.14, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.30];Q(1) = 0.02, ns]. Finally, the moderator analysis of the pro-crastination scale used was non-significant [Q(1) = 0.78, ns],indicating that the effect sizes from the five studies using theGPS (n=1414; ρ=0.15, 95% CI= [0.03, 0.27]) were notany different from those obtained from the two studies thatused the AIP-R (n=724; ρ=0.06, 95% CI= [�0.08, 0.21]).

Mediation analyses of the procrastination-futuretime-perspective link

To address the issue of why trait procrastination may beassociated with low levels of future time orientation, mediationanalyses were conducted with the two samples (samples 1 and4) that included both measures of perceived stress and positiveaffect. The correlations among the mediation model variablesare presented in Table 4. All model variables were significantlycorrelated in the expected directions in both samples. Specifi-cally, procrastination was positively correlated with stress,which in turn was negatively correlated with future time per-spective, and was negatively correlated with positive affect,which was positively correlated with future time perspective.

Mediation of the effects of procrastination on future timeperspective through perceived stress and positive affect ineach sample was tested following the Preacher and Hayes(2008) procedure, which uses bootstrapping rather thanSobel tests to estimate the significance of indirect effects.


DOI: 10.1002/per

Table 4. Bivariate correlations among the mediation modelvariables in samples 1 and 4

Variable 1 2 3 4

1. Procrastination — �.49** .35** �.27**2. Future time perspective �.42** — �.36** .43**3. Perceived stress .31** �.26** — �.38**4. Positive affect �.27** .20** �.22** —

Note: Correlations for sample 1 (N =210) are below the diagonal andcorrelations, and those for sample 4 (N =140) are above the diagonal.**p< .01.


This procedure involves drawing bootstrapped samples fromthe data in order to estimate the indirect effect for each of theresampled data sets (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Shrout &Bolger, 2002). The single and multiple mediation analyseswere conducted using the Preacher and Hayes macroINDIRECT (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), which permitssimultaneous testing of two mediators. Table 5 presents asummary of the mediation analyses and indirect effectsanalyses for samples 1 and 4, which used 5000 bootstrappingresamples and bias-corrected 95% CIs.

In sample 1, the single-mediator analysis for the indirecteffect of procrastination on future time perspective throughperceived stress was significant, but for positive affect, itwas non-significant. In sample 4, the single-mediatoranalyses for both perceived stress and positive affect weresignificant. A multiple-mediator analyses was therefore

Table 5. Indirect effects of procrastination (PRO) on future time perspeacross two samples

N Path B (SE) t

Ind

Data (SE)

210 PRO–PS (a) 0.31 (0.07) 4.73**PS–FTP (b) �0.15 (0.07) �2.07*PRO–FTP (c) �0.44 (0.07) �6.58**PRO–PS–FTP (c′) �0.40 (0.07) �5.65** 0.04 (0.02)

PRO–PA (a) �0.32 (0.08) �4.01**PA–FTP (b) 0.09 (0.06) 1.45PRO–FTP (c) �0.44 (0.07) �6.58**PRO–PA–FTP (c′) �0.42 (0.07) �5.96** �0.03 (0.03)

140 PRO–PS (a) 0.35 (0.08) 4.31**PS–FTP (b) �0.21 (0.08) �2.55*PRO–FTP (c) �0.53 (0.08) �6.58**PRO–PS–FTP (c′) �0.45 (0.08) �5.42** �0.07 (0.03)

PRO–PA (a) �0.34 (0.10) �2.27**PA–FTP (b) 0.24 (0.06) 3.95**PRO–FTP (c) �0.53 (0.08) �6.58**PRO–PA–FTP (c′) �0.44 (0.08) �5.61** 0.08 (0.03)

PRO–PS (a) 0.35 (0.11) 4.31**PRO–PA (a) �0.35 (0.08) �3.27**PS–FTP (b) �0.12 (0.09) �1.39PA–FTP (b) 0.21 (0.07) 3.26**PRO–FTP (c) 0.31 (0.05) 6.12**PRO–PS, PA–FTP (c′) �0.41 (0.08) �5.05** �0.11 (0.04)PS �0.05 (0.03)PA �0.07 (0.03)

Note: Boot strapping analyses were conducted with 5000 resamples. BCA CI, bia


conducted to determine if the effects overlapped or wereunique. Only the indirect effect of positive affect wassignificant when the two mediators were tested simulta-neously. In each of the analyses, the direct effects of procrasti-nation on future time perspective remained significant,suggesting that the perceived stress and positive affect onlypartially mediated the link between procrastination and futuretime perspective.

DISCUSSION

Consistent with current theory on procrastination as a form oftemporal self-regulation failure that involves a disjunctionbetween the present and future self (Sirois & Pychyl,2013), procrastination was associated with low levels offuture time perspective and high levels of present timeperspective across 14 diverse samples and using severaldifferent measures. The associations of procrastination topresent time perspective did not differ as a result ofsample type, procrastination measure or publication status.However, the magnitude of the associations betweenprocrastination and future time perspective did varydepending upon the measure used for time perspective, withsmaller effects found using the CFC scale (Strathman et al.,1994) in comparison with those found using the ZTPI(Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999).

ctive (FTP) through perceived stress (PS) and positive affect (PA)

irect effects

BCA CIsModelR2 F (df)Bootstrapping (SE)

.19 24.10** (2, 207)

0.04 (0.02) �0.10, �0.01

.18 22.79** (2, 207)

�0.03 (0.03) �0.07, 0.01

.27 25.79** (2, 137)

�0.07 (0.04) �0.17, �0.02

.32 31.75** (2, 137)

0.08 (0.04) �0.18, �0.03

.33 21.95** (3, 136)

�0.11 (0.04) �0.21, �0.04�0.05 (0.03) �0.13, 0.02�0.07 (0.03) �0.17, �0.02

s-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals. *p< .05; **p< .001.


DOI: 10.1002/per

F. M. Sirois

This is the first study to meta-analytically summarize theavailable research to date on the links between procrastina-tion and time perspective, and also probe the possible reasonswhy procrastination is associated with low levels of futuretime perspective. Following Cohen’s (1988) guidelines,procrastination had a moderate-sized negative associationwith future time perspective across the 14 samples but onlya small positive association with present time perspective.There are several factors that may explain the difference ineffects sizes. In one sense, future-oriented thinking can beviewed as a form of mental simulation whereby the futureis envisioned as being contingent upon current actions andcircumstances, thus guiding current choices and actions. Thistype of future-oriented thought is adaptive insomuch as it caninform current intentions and behaviour. Thus, it may befunctionally analogous to upward counterfactual thoughts,thoughts about how things could have been better hadchoices and actions in response to failed goals been differentthat can be instrumental in correcting behaviours that mayimpede future success (Epstude & Roese, 2008, 2011).Not surprisingly, procrastination is associated with atendency to make fewer of these adaptive, future-orientedupward counterfactuals about what might have been inresponse to unnecessary delay (Sirois, 2004a), indicating ageneral tendency to avoid thinking about the future in anadaptive manner.

Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) suggest that future andpresent time perceptive are not conceptual opposites, andtherefore, scoring low on one temporal orientation does notimply scoring equally high on the other. For example, onestudy found that having a balanced time perspective, thatis, scoring equally high on all dimensions of the ZTPI, wasthe most prevalent time-perspective profile (Drake et al.,2008). As well, focusing on the present may be more of atemporary strategy to help procrastinators reduce dissonanceabout not completing important but aversive tasks on time orto escape negative self-evaluative thoughts. The modestassociation of procrastination with present time perspectivefound may be a reflection of this. Recent research on procras-tination and mindfulness, a particular type of present-centredawareness, supports this view. In a sample of students,procrastination was associated with low levels of mindful-ness, suggesting that procrastinators may be lost in themoment by engaging in stress-provoking judgmental, self-critical and reactive thoughts about their own behaviour(Sirois & Tosti, 2012).

The results of the tests of the indirect effects providedsome support for the proposed role of perceived stress andpositive affect in explaining the link between procrastinationand future time perspective. Consistent with the research andtheory on the effects of stress on cognitive focus (McEwen,2007), perceived stress partially explained why procrastina-tion was associated with less focus on the future in bothsamples. The results for the role of positive affect were lessclear. In sample 4, positive affect was a significant mediatorboth alone and when considering the effects of perceivedstress. This finding may be explained in light of the proposedrole of positive affect for undoing the narrowing effects ofstress on attention and cognition (Fredrickson, 1998).


Although high levels of stress may bring attention to morefocal concerns, positive emotions arising from adaptivecoping strategies may counteract this pre-occupation withcurrent concerns by broadening the temporal focus to includethe future. But with low levels of positive affect, thenarrowing effects of stress on cognitive focus can persist,and there is less attention given to the future and plans thatmay overcome current difficulties. However plausible, thisexplanation should be considered with caution until furtherreplicated as the analyses with sample 1 did not find indirecteffects through positive affect. Moreover, the size of theeffects for both mediators was small, indicating that eachmay only play a minor explanatory role and that futureresearch should focus on other factors to shed light on thereasons why procrastinators focus less on the future. It is pos-sible that other qualities or traits linked to procrastination suchas impulsivity could also explain the limited and unbalancedtemporal perspective associated with procrastination.

Limitations, strengths and future directions

The cross-sectional nature of the data meta-analysed andavailable for the mediation analyses precludes any causalconclusions about the nature of the relationships between pro-crastination and time perspective. Because each can be viewedas an individual difference, both directions are possible, that is,trait procrastination may over time lead to the development of atemporal bias to focus less on the future, or having a temporalbias to not focus on the future may increase the tendency toprocrastinate habitually. In the current study, the former viewwas tested for several reasons. As noted by Steel (2007), thereis evidence suggesting that 22% of the variance in procrastina-tion is linked to genetic factors, and when measured as a trait,procrastination shows good stability over a 10-year period.Zimbardo and Boyd’s (1999) account of the development oftime perspective as an individual difference that emerges fromthe chronic overuse of non-conscious processes that favour onetemporal frame over another further suggests that notfavouring a future time frame may arise from stable tendenciessuch as procrastination. Nonetheless, it is also possible that theassociations between procrastination and time perspectiveinvolve synergistic and dynamic processes whereby onetendency feeds into the other, making each more consistentover time. Future longitudinal and experimental work isneeded to help bring clarity to these issues. Finally, it is possi-ble that there are other unpublished data sets or theses onprocrastination and time perspective that exist but were notidentified by the search strategies, as all procrastinationresearchers were not contacted. However, even if it was possi-ble to contact all procrastination researchers, and such data setsdid exist, this would not ensure that they would cooperate andprovide the needed correlations for this meta-analysis.

A clear strength of the current study was the use ofseveral samples gathered from a variety of published andunpublished sources. This approach resulted in a largepooled sample of over 4300 participants to meta-analyticallytest the nature of the associations between procrastinationand time perspective. It also provided an opportunity toreplicate the results not just across samples but also across


DOI: 10.1002/per


different measures of each construct and therefore addresssome of the issues from past research. The associated moder-ation analyses also provided evidence that how future timeperspective is measured may impact the sizes of the effectsobtained, a finding that can help inform researchers in theirchoice of measures for future work in this area. This multiplesample approach also provided an opportunity for a prelimi-nary test across two samples of the hypotheses that stress andpositive affect explained in part the association between pro-crastination and time perspective through mediation analyses.Future research is needed to further investigate other statesand traits that might also account for this association.

This research also makes a contribution to the research ontemporal views of procrastination by outlining how enduringtemporal perspectives rather than temporal framing of tasksare associated with procrastination. Other research usingtemporal frameworks such as Construal Level Theory (Trope& Liberman, 2003) focuses on how viewing tasks as moretemporally close and concrete rather than distant and abstractis linked to task procrastination (McCrea, Liberman, Trope,& Sherman, 2008). Similarly, Temporal Motivation Theoryoutlines how temporal framing of the rewards expected fromengaging in a task can motivate decisions to procrastinate(Steel & Konig, 2006). In contrast, the current researchfocuses on how not having a general temporal orientationtowards the future is a common feature of trait procrastinators.

The current findings highlight several possible avenuesfor future investigations to better understand the dynamicinterrelations of affect and cognition that underlie procrasti-nator’s intertemporal choices. Apart from having beneficialeffects on well-being, reducing procrastinators’ stress, thecurrent findings suggest that stress-reducing interventionsmay have the added benefit of broadening and balancingtheir temporal focus, thereby providing an opportunity toconsider the consequences of not acting in a timely manner.Similar to the functional effects of upward counterfactualthinking (Epstude & Roese, 2008, 2011), mentally simulat-ing the future outcomes of procrastination may function tohighlight corrective action to avoid unnecessary delay.Finding ways to increase positive affect may lead to similaroutcomes, as positive affect can counteract the cognitivenarrowing associated with stress (Fredrickson, 1998), andmay also have a more direct effect on reducing procrastina-tion given the central role of emotions in procrastinationproposed by Sirois and Pychyl (2013).

CONCLUSION

The current study contributes to the growing body ofresearch focused on the science of procrastination by demon-strating that trait procrastination was associated with a lowerfuture time orientation and higher present time orientationacross 14 different samples. In addition, the moderation analy-ses of the effects highlighted measurement issues with respectto time orientation. Evidence from two samples furtherindicated that procrastinators’ tendency to focus less on thefuture may be due to in part to their high levels of stress andlow levels of positive affect, which can constrain cognitive


focus towards more focal rather than distal concerns.Further experimental and longitudinal research is needed toconfirm these findings and to elucidate the nature of thedynamic interrelations of affect and cognition involvedin the disjunction between the present and future self thatcharacterizes procrastination.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The data collection for samples 1 and 2 was supported by aresearch grant (no. 410-2005-0094) from the Social Sciencesand Research Council (Canada). Preparation of this paperwas supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program.Portions of this paper were presented at the 1st InternationalConference on Time Perspective in Coimbra, Portugal, in 2012.

REFERENCES

Boniwell, I., Osin, E., Linley, A.P., & Ivanchenko, G.V. (2010). Aquestion of balance: Time perspective and well-being in British andRussian samples. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 24–40.

Borenstein,M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005).Com-prehensive Meta-analysis (Version 2). Englewood NJ: Biostat.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probabil-ity sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan, & S. Oskamp(Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont Symposiumon applied social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

D’Alessio, M., Guarino, A., De Pascalis, V., & Zimbardo, P.G.(2003). Testing Zimbardo’s Stanford Time Perspective Inventory(ZPTI): Short form. Time & Society, 12, 333–347.

Davis, M., & Whalen, P.J. (2001). The amygdala: Vigilance andemotion. Molecular Psychiatry, 6, 13–34.

Deyling, E.L. (2008). The effect of priming death anxiety on futuretime orientation and procrastination. Unpublished Master’s thesisin Psychology, Cleveland State University.

Díaz-Morales, J.F., Ferrari, J.R., & Cohen, J.R. (2008). Indecisionand avoidant procrastination: The role of morningness–eveningness and time perspective in chronic delay lifestyles.The Journal of General Psychology, 135(3), 228–240. DOI:10.3200/genp.135.3.228-240

Drake, L., Duncan, E., Sutherland, F., Abernethy, C., & Henry, C.(2008). Time perspective and correlates of wellbeing. Time &Society, 17(1), 47–61.

Dutta, R., & DeShano, L. (2013). [Correlations between academicprocrastination and consideration of future consequences].Unpublished raw data.

Epstude, K., & Roese, N.J. (2008). The functional theory ofcounterfactual thinking. Personality and Social PsychologyReview, 12(2), 168.

Epstude, K., & Roese, N.J. (2011). When goal pursuit fails: Thefunctions of counterfactual thought in intention formation. SocialPsychology, 42(1), 19–27.

Ferrari, J.R. (1991). Compulsive procrastination: Some self-reported characteristics. Psychological Reports, 68(2), 455–458.

Ferrari, J.R., & Díaz-Morales, J.F. (2007). Procrastination: Differenttime orientations reflect different motives. Journal of Research inPersonality, 41, 707–714.

Flett, G.L., Blankstein, K.R., & Martin, T.R. (1995). Procrastina-tion, negative self-evaluation, and stress in depression andanxiety: A review and preliminary model. In J.R. Ferrari, J.H.Johnson & W.G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination, and taskavoidance: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 137–167).New York: Plenum.


DOI: 10.1002/per

F. M. Sirois

Flett, G.L., Stainton, M., Hewitt, P., Sherry, S., & Lay, C. (2012).Procrastination automatic thoughts as a personality construct:An analysis of the procrastinatory cognitions inventory. Journalof Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 1–14.DOI: 10.1007/s10942-012-0150-z

Fredrickson, B.L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Reviewof General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319.

Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positivepsychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.218

Gupta, R., Hershey, D., & Gaur, J. (2012). Time perspective and pro-crastination in the workplace: An empirical investigation. CurrentPsychology, 31(2), 195–211. DOI: 10.1007/s12144-012-9136-3

Haycock, L.A., McCarthy, P., & Skay, C.L. (1998). Procrastinationin college students: The role of self-efficacy and anxiety. Journalof Counseling and Development, 76(3), 317–324.

Jackson, T., Fritch, A., Nagasaka, T., & Pope, L. (2003). Procrastina-tion and perceptions of past, present, and future. IndividualDifferences Research, 1, 17–28.

Jones, J.M., Banicky, L., Lasane, T., & Pomare, M. (1996). Thetemporal orientation scale. Unpublished scale. St. Mary’s City,MD: Dept. of Psychology. St. Mary’s College.

Lay, C.H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination.Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474–495.

Lay, C.H., Edwards, J.M., Parker, J.D., & Endler, N.S. (1989). Anassessment of appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastinationduring an examination period. European Journal of Personality,3(3), 195–208.

LeDoux, J.E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Reviewof Neuroscience, 23(1), 155–184. DOI:10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.155

Martin, T.R., Flett, G.L., Hewitt, P.L., Krames, L., & Szanto, G.(1996). Personality correlates of depression and health symptoms:A test of a self-regulation model. Journal of Research in Personal-ity, 30(2), 264–277.

McCown, W.G., & Johnson, J.L. (2001). The Adult Inventory ofProcrastination revised. Unpublished manual.

McCrea, S.M., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Sherman, S.J. (2008).Construal level and procrastination. Psychological Science,19(12), 1308–1314.

McEwen, B.S. (2007). Physiology and neurobiology of stress andadaptation: Central role of the brain. Physiological Reviews,87(3), 873–904. DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00041.2006

Nedeljkovic, J., & Kostric, A. (2013). Procrastination and time per-spective in Serbian students. Paper presented at the 8th BiennialProcrastination Research Conference, Sherbrooke, QC.

Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures forestimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. BehaviorResearch Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.

Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strat-egies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple media-tor models. Behavior ResearchMethods, Instruments, & Computers:A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc, 40, 879–891.

Pychyl, T.A., Lee, J.M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Fivedays of emotion: An experience sampling study of undergraduatestudent procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Person-ality, 15(5), 239–254.

Rice, K.G., Richardson, C.M.E., & Clark, D. (2012). Perfectionism,procrastination, and psychological distress. Journal of Counsel-ing Psychology, 59(2), 288–302.

Schouwenburg, H.C., & Groenewoud, J.T. (2001). Study motiva-tion under social temptation: Effects of trait procrastination.Personality and Individual Differences, 30(2), 229–240.

Senecal, C., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R.J. (1995). Self-regulationand academic procrastination. Journal of Social Psychology,135(5), 607–619.

Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental andnonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.


Sirois, F.M. (2004a). Procrastination and counterfactual thinking:Avoiding what might have been. British Journal of SocialPsychology, 43, 269–286.

Sirois, F.M. (2004b). Procrastination and intentions to perform healthbehaviors: The role of self-efficacy and the consideration of futureconsequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 115–128.

Sirois, F.M. (2007). “I’ll look after my health, later”: A replicationand extension of the procrastination–health model withcommunity-dwelling adults. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 43, 15–26.

Sirois, F. (2013a). Procrastination and stress: Exploring the role of self-compassion. Self and Identity. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2013.763404

Sirois, F.M. (2013b). Procrastination and stress: Exploring the roleof self-compassion. Self and Identity, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2013.763404

Sirois, F.M., & Giguère, B. (2013). When resistance isn’t futile:Task enjoyment as a protective factor against health procrastina-tion in the face of temptation. Paper presented at the 8th BiennialProcrastination Research conference, Sherbrooke, QC.

Sirois, F.M., & Pychyl, T. (2013). Procrastination and the priority ofshort-term mood regulation: Consequences for future self. Socialand Personality Psychology Compass, 7(2), 115–127.

Sirois, F.M., & Stout, D. (2011). When knowing better doesn’tmean doing better: Understanding the roles of procrastinationand self-blame in the health and well-being of nurses. Paperpresented at the 7th Biennial Conference on Procrastination, Am-sterdam, The Netherlands.

Sirois, F.M., & Tosti, N. (2012). Lost in the moment? An investiga-tion of procrastination, mindfulness, and well-being. Journal ofRational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 1–12.

Sirois, F.M., Melia-Gordon, M.L., & Pychyl, T.A. (2003). “I’ll lookafter my health, later”: An investigation of procrastination andhealth. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(5), 1167–1184.

Specter, M.H., & Ferrari, J.R. (2000). Time orientations of procras-tinators: Focusing on the past, present, or future? Journal of So-cial Behavior and Personality, 15(5), 197–202.

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic andtheoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psy-chological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94.

Steel, P., & Konig, C.J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation.Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 889–913.

Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D.S., & Edwards, C.S.(1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing im-mediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 66(4), 742–752.

Tice, D.M., & Baumeister, R.F. (1997). Longitudinal study of pro-crastination, performance, stress, and health: The costs and bene-fits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8(6), 454–458.

Tice, D.M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: Theplace of emotion regulation in the context of general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 149–159.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psycholog-ical Review, 110(3), 403–421.

Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for thePositive and Negative Affect Schedule—Expanded form. The Uni-versity of Iowa.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development andvalidation of brief measures of Positive and Negative Affect: ThePANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54, 1063–1070.

Whitener, E.M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and cred-ibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,75(3), 315–321.

Zacher, H., & de Lange, A.H. (2011). Relations between chronicregulatory focus and future time perspective: Results of a cross-lagged structural equation model. Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 50(8), 1255–1260.

Zimbardo, P.G., & Boyd, N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: Avalid, reliable, individual-differences metric. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 17, 1271–1288.


DOI: 10.1002/per

Documents

Out of Sight, Out of Time? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Procrastination and Time Perspective